Obviously that is the height of the steroid era. My point is that outside of that period that strikeouts per game and runs per game have been fairly consistent since around 95, and both are higher than any other period in the game. The approach hitters have been using since the mid to late 90's until now has produced more runs than the approach hitters used in the past.

Obviously that is the height of the steroid era. My point is that outside of that period that strikeouts per game and runs per game have been fairly consistent since around 95, and both are higher than any other period in the game. The approach hitters have been using since the mid to late 90's until now has produced more runs than the approach hitters used in the past.

That is simply not true. Just look at the K trends from the chart on this website:

__________________"I have the ultimate respect for White Sox fans. They were as miserable as the Cubs and Red Sox fans ever were but always had the good decency to keep it to themselves. And when they finally won the World Series, they celebrated without annoying every other fan in the country." Jim Caple, ESPN (January 12, 2011)

"We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the (bleeding) obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." — George Orwell

Despite the strikeouts today's hitters are producing more runs per game than the league has since the 40's. Maybe they actually know what they're doing after all? ...

Even if both runs and strikeouts were at an all-time high, you shouldn't draw the conclusion that strikeouts being at an all-time high contributed to runs being at an all-time high. The two facts might not be related. There are so many factors that come into play in comparing run production in two eight-teams leagues with two 15-league teams, one of which employs the DH. Actually, I find it odd that the two major league teams that struck out the least last season had pitcher in the lineup in more than 150 games, but I draw no conclusions from that fact alone.

Hypothetically, I can imagine someone coming up with an argument that strikeouts are improving offense because they force pitchers to throw more pitches in this pitch-count-obsessed era that the best pitchers aren't going deeper into games. I'm not sure how I would respond.

But I don't see how putting up more outs without forcing the defense to make plays to get hitters out can help your offense. Even in tonight's White Sox loss, the White Sox scored their first run because the hitter with a 3-2 count put the ball in play with the runner going. A strikeout could have resulted in a double play. Not sending the runner leaves the White Sox scoreless. One of the things I think has been limiting the White Sox offense this year is the enormous number of strikeouts.

One thing I think gets lost in this is that strikeouts aren't just another out. Yes, a ground out and a strikeout are both 1 out. However, a normal BABIP is about .300, so for every strikeout you take away, you can expect about .3 hits. So with Dunn, if he cut his strikeouts in half, you'd expect about 8 more hits so far this year. That's a different between a .163 average and a .216. It's a .302 obp instead of .256. Now, cutting his k's in half is a tall order, but every k he shaves off is at least a chance for something good to happen.

Or another way to say it. If an out is inevitable, a strikeout is the same as any other out. When you put the ball in play, an out is never inevitable. So while we can relax a little bit and understand that strikeouts aren't as evil as we used to think, I'd still rather have players that can put the bat on the ball at a good rate.

But a player who strikes out a lot, but who also hits a lot of frozen ropes all over the field (and over the fences), and therefore has a high BABIP, would still be a productive player. I'm not sure there's a real player who fits this hypothetical profile, however.

__________________The universe is the practical joke of the General at the expense of the Particular, quoth Frater Perdurabo, and laughed. The disciples nearest him wept, seeing the Universal Sorrow. Others laughed, seeing the Universal Joke. Others wept. Others laughed. Others wept because they couldn't see the Joke, and others laughed lest they should be thought not to see the Joke. But though FRATER laughed openly, he wept secretly; and really he neither laughed nor wept. Nor did he mean what he said.

One thing I think gets lost in this is that strikeouts aren't just another out. Yes, a ground out and a strikeout are both 1 out. However, a normal BABIP is about .300, so for every strikeout you take away, you can expect about .3 hits. So with Dunn, if he cut his strikeouts in half, you'd expect about 8 more hits so far this year. That's a different between a .163 average and a .216. It's a .302 obp instead of .256. Now, cutting his k's in half is a tall order, but every k he shaves off is at least a chance for something good to happen.

Or another way to say it. If an out is inevitable, a strikeout is the same as any other out. When you put the ball in play, an out is never inevitable. So while we can relax a little bit and understand that strikeouts aren't as evil as we used to think, I'd still rather have players that can put the bat on the ball at a good rate.

I think the shift for lefthanders is somewhat the same as the strikeout issue. When Dunn is hitting in front of Paulie, it is a good thing when he gets on base especially if they already have a runner. Not just Dunn, but many lefties including Thome always swing into the shift. If Dunn is hitting w a man on and the opponents put the shift on, an occasional bunt especially in a close game last night could be huge.
Just an example was last night, Sox in first inning had Dunn up w first and second and 1 out. 3rd baseman was over to prevent the steal but was deep. Dunn strikes out and then paulie hit a bullet that was caught by Gomes. Now if Dunn could have got the runner up to 3rd w a bunt once he had 2 strikes and loaded the bases that would have been a key run in what was a close game till the late innings. But bunting is a lost art w many regulars and does not exist among the free-swingers. But if a guy like Dunn used it once or twice a month in key situations , the threat would give him more space on the right side of the infield.

But a player who strikes out a lot, but who also hits a lot of frozen ropes all over the field (and over the fences), and therefore has a high BABIP, would still be a productive player. I'm not sure there's a real player who fits this hypothetical profile, however.

In some ways, Dunn used to fit that profile. Prior to being on the Sox, his career BABIP was .296, and his seasons in Washington were at .324 and .329.

Anothing thing to consider is that at least some part of the theoretical benefit of that type of player who swings real hard, hits the ball real hard, and strikes out a lot is not captured in BABIP because HR are not counted as hits or at-bats in BABIP.

There's no one easy way to say that player X should try to strike out less or should try to hit more homers to be the most effective. There's a lot more going on that just saying "if so-and-so changed their approach, the numbers and the theory say he'd be this much better." I feel like there's got to be someone on Fangraphs or something who has written something about where the reasonable breaking point is between K's and homers that shows how productive with power hitting one needs to be in order to compensate for a high K rate. The problem is, you can't go to a player and tell them to change an approach because the numbers say they should and always have it work out, because the ability and skill set might not be there. If they told Dunn to shorten up and try to just put the ball in play with 2-strikes, would it really help his K's much? Would it make his BABIP even worse? Would he hit fewer homers? Would it affect his discipline in some way that we couldn't predict?

In some ways, Dunn used to fit that profile. Prior to being on the Sox, his career BABIP was .296, and his seasons in Washington were at .324 and .329.

Anothing thing to consider is that at least some part of the theoretical benefit of that type of player who swings real hard, hits the ball real hard, and strikes out a lot is not captured in BABIP because HR are not counted as hits or at-bats in BABIP.

There's no one easy way to say that player X should try to strike out less or should try to hit more homers to be the most effective. There's a lot more going on that just saying "if so-and-so changed their approach, the numbers and the theory say he'd be this much better." I feel like there's got to be someone on Fangraphs or something who has written something about where the reasonable breaking point is between K's and homers that shows how productive with power hitting one needs to be in order to compensate for a high K rate. The problem is, you can't go to a player and tell them to change an approach because the numbers say they should and always have it work out, because the ability and skill set might not be there. If they told Dunn to shorten up and try to just put the ball in play with 2-strikes, would it really help his K's much? Would it make his BABIP even worse? Would he hit fewer homers? Would it affect his discipline in some way that we couldn't predict?

Dunn has hit 3 homers with a 2 strike count. So, with 2 strikes, he's got a 3.5% chance to homer and a 67% chance to strikeout. When he's ahead in the count, he homers 11.5% of the time. I don't know if he has the ability to shorten up and get more hits. I doubt it. I just don't like the guy's game. He's not fun to watch.

I guess you are right, players do strike out more now than they did in the 90s. I still maintain that the 90s saw the most runs per game since the 30s and the second most strikeouts per game and since then we've seen the second most runs per game since the 30s and the most strikeouts per game.

One thing I think gets lost in this is that strikeouts aren't just another out. Yes, a ground out and a strikeout are both 1 out. However, a normal BABIP is about .300, so for every strikeout you take away, you can expect about .3 hits. So with Dunn, if he cut his strikeouts in half, you'd expect about 8 more hits so far this year. That's a different between a .163 average and a .216. It's a .302 obp instead of .256. Now, cutting his k's in half is a tall order, but every k he shaves off is at least a chance for something good to happen.

Or another way to say it. If an out is inevitable, a strikeout is the same as any other out. When you put the ball in play, an out is never inevitable. So while we can relax a little bit and understand that strikeouts aren't as evil as we used to think, I'd still rather have players that can put the bat on the ball at a good rate.

If Dunn is chancing his approach and striking out less do you really think he's going to take as many walks? His average may increase to .216, but his OBP is not going to get to .302, and his slugging is also going to drop. I'm not saying it couldn't be beneficial, but it's not as simple as that.